'Unhinged': Time Mag Claims Christians Self-Immolated to Protest the Roman Empire Too

Megan McArdle: Google's Gemini AI Said the Quiet Part Out Loud

My colleagues and I have built a robot composed of many building blocks like the cells of a multicellular organism. Without a “brain” or a central controller in the system‚ our robot‚ dubbed Loopy‚ relies on the collective behavior of all of its cells to interact with the world.In this sense‚ we call Loopy a robotic swarm. But Loopy can also be seen as a single robot since all the cells are connected; therefore‚ Loopy is also “a swarm of one.” This research could lead to adaptive robots that tailor their shapes and movements to their environments – for example‚ in environmental cleanup applications.Loopy is a primitive form of multicellular robot that is made of a ring of 36 cells. Each cell has a rotary servo – an electric motor that rotates a shaft with precise controlled angle of rotation – and sensors. Each cell reacts on its own without input from any of the others except for its two immediate neighbors. As the servos move‚ the angles between the cells determine Loopy’s overall shape.Loopy is free to morph into various shapes and exhibit a range of motions. But random shapes and motions are not useful. We were hoping something interesting would emerge from self-organization; that is‚ the spontaneous creation of order from disorder‚ without us telling Loopy what to do directly. It turned out that Loopy forms stable shapes that recover after Loopy bumps into obstacles.Loopy exhibiting spontaneous shapes and motions.Famed mathematician Alan Turing was interested in the idea of self-organization back in 1952. He even envisioned a ring of cells. Turing hypothesized the existence of chemicals that diffuse and react with each other‚ leading to the creation of patterns in nature like those on bird’s feathers and seashells. This self-organization approach using simulated chemicals enabled Loopy to form and transition between various lobed shapes spontaneously.Why it mattersEngineered systems‚ and robots in particular‚ are predominantly designed with a top-down approach‚ where human designers anticipate the conditions the system may encounter and plan ahead through hardware designs‚ software programs‚ or both. The problem is‚ the designers are not likely to be there when the robot encounters an unanticipated situation.This micromanagement approach in robot design is like giving kids a detailed manual when sending them to school the first day. A better way of parenting would be to provide general guidelines and feedback‚ and expect the kids to solve problems on their own. Similarly‚ a key motivation of developing Loopy is to unleash the power of bottom-up collective “intelligence” so Loopy can find new solutions on its own when a new situation arises; for example‚ finding the right shape for self to adapt to the environment.What other research is being done?The vision of programmable matter has been around for decades‚ yet tangible examples have been scarce. While researchers have explored complex shape formation through self-assembly or reconfigurable robotic systems‚ these often depend on predetermined shapes.Similar to Loopy‚ researchers have applied Turing’s self-organization concept to swarms of robots‚ such as the small‚ simple‚ autonomous Kilobots‚ leading to the emergence of complex shapes. However‚ unlike Loopy‚ the physical forces between “cells” are not used to influence the final shape and behavior of the collective.What’s next?We would like Loopy to develop more lifelike traits‚ such as navigating unforeseen situations‚ seeking out better conditions‚ acquiring resources‚ and mitigating threats. This vision extends to eventually enabling Loopy to perform tasks assigned by people‚ thereby bridging the gap between the open-ended creativity of self-organization and human guidance.The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.Yu Gu‚ Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering‚ West Virginia University and Trevor Smith‚ PhD Candidate in Mechanical Engineering‚ West Virginia UniversityThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

King Arthur‚ the ruler of Camelot‚ champion of Britain‚ wielder of Excalibur‚ and seeker of the Holy Grail‚ is surely the stuff of legend. There are probably few in Western societies who have not encountered some aspect of his story through various media‚ from books to television shows‚ to video games and so on. But despite the power of this apparently timeless mythological figure‚ there is one question that has caused consternation for scholars and the public alike – was the legend of Author based on a real person?Unfortunately‚ despite there being many who believe there was a living‚ breathing king called Arthur‚ there is no historical evidence to support it.The legend of a storyTo be sure‚ the story of Arthur has not been static. It has gone through various transformations and revisions over the centuries‚ whereby more of the mythical features we recognize today were added. So to understand the individual from an historical perspective‚ we have to go right back in time.Save for a few scattered references‚ we do not really hear any mention of Arthur until the 12th century CE. In his The History of the Kings of Britain‚ the Welsh monk Geoffrey of Monmouth provides the first extensive account of this character’s life. According to Monmouth‚ Arthur’s story starts with a rather dark event when Merlin (another complex character with his own twisting legend) transformed King Uther Pendragon (certainly not a real person) into the likeness of the Duke of Cornwall. This was so Uther could spend the night with the Duke’s wife‚ Ygerna. During this night‚ Arthur was conceived in the stronghold of Tintagel.From here‚ Arthur grows into a powerful leader who inherits the British throne and leads his people in various epic and bloody battles against Saxon invaders. He later spreads his kingdom to encompass Ireland‚ Iceland‚ Norway‚ and Gaul‚ but is eventually murdered by his nephew‚ Mordred.There is nothing in this account about Camelot‚ Lancelot‚ the Holy Grail‚ his sword‚ or the heroic and chivalric knights who attended the Round Table. These features were all added later by authors looking to make Arthur fit with romantic ideas of their time. This was probably a good move too‚ as a sixth century leader would have likely been less “knightly” and far more brutal.Monmouth’s story cannot be construed as historical fact in any way. Even in his day he was criticized for fabricating elements while mixing together pieces from various Welsh poems and sources. As such‚ the Arthur we get is less a coherent individual and more like a soup of stories blended together.But what about the poems that inspired Monmouth; could they hint at a real person?Despite the dodgy grounds for the story of Arthur‚ there are some who argue that his narrative was inspired‚ to a lesser or greater extent‚ by some sort of fifth or sixth century leader who was captured in Welsh poetry.According to these claims‚ at the end of the Roman occupation‚ a leader emerged who led the Britons – who had mostly become Christian by this point – against pagan Saxon invaders‚ and this hero’s name was Arthur…maybe. For instance‚ in a poem called Y Gododdin‚ written sometime between 540 and 640 CE‚ a fallen soldier is likened to another heroic figure called Arthur. Presumably then‚ there was some contemporary figure who would have been sufficiently recognizable as to make this likening significant.  In another poem from the same period‚ the monk Gildas recalled how a hero called Ambrosius Aurelianus had led the Britons to victory at a sixth century battle known as the Battle of Badon Hill. However‚ a few centuries later‚ another monk called Nennius described a different warrior‚ called Arthur‚ as having led the Britons in this battle (and 11 others too). It is possible that Nennius’s account was one that inspired Monmouth’s later histories‚ though we cannot be sure.Does this mean there really was an historical character called Arthur? Well‚ some like to think so‚ but it honestly does not look like it. As mentioned above‚ medieval chroniclers loved to blend fact with fiction‚ and many of these accounts were created hundreds of years after the events they claim to describe. Still‚ there are many out there who hold a candle for the reality behind the Once and Future King. Unfortunately‚ history is yet to provide us with anything solid to base that hope on.

Scientists have a found new avenue that could lead to the development of a male contraceptive that’s both non-hormonal and reversible. Although only tested on mice so far‚ the researchers believe their “promising” approach could lead to human clinical trials soon.The discovery comes in the form of a protein complex that regulates gene expression during sperm production. In a recent study‚ scientists at the Salk Institute in the US treated male mice with an existing class of drugs‚ called HDAC (histone deacetylase) inhibitors‚ which can interrupt the function of this protein complex.Their experiments showed that these drugs temporarily blocked the mice's fertility. Importantly‚ however‚ their sex drive was not impacted‚ their testosterone levels stayed the same‚ and their fertility returned 60 days after stopping the drug.“Most experimental male birth control drugs use a hammer approach to blocking sperm production‚ but ours is much more subtle. This makes it a promising therapeutic approach‚ which we hope to see in development for human clinical trials soon‚” Professor Ronald Evans‚ senior study author from the Gene Expression Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies‚ said in a statement.Like other approaches to male contraceptives before‚ this method works on retinoic acid‚ a nutrient that acts as a signal for sperm stem cells in the testes to turn into sperm. Retinoic acid binds to receptors in the cells to prompt the complex genetic process that turns the stem cells into mature sperm. For this to work‚ retinoic acid receptors must bind with a protein called SMRT‚ which then recruits HDACs to synchronize the expression of genes that produce sperm.Previously explored approaches simply block retinoic acid or its receptor to kill sperm production‚ but this can lead to various side effects because retinoic acid is needed for many bodily functions.Instead‚ this new therapy uses an HDAC inhibitor drug‚ which breaks the sperm production cycle with little apparent effect on the rest of the body’s function.“It’s all about timing‚” explained co-author Michael Downes‚ a senior staff scientist in Evans’ lab. “When we add the drug‚ the stem cells fall out of sync with the pulses of retinoic acid‚ and sperm production is halted‚ but as soon as we take the drug away‚ the stem cells can reestablish their coordination with retinoic acid and sperm production will start up again.”It seems like the promise of a male contraceptive pill is always “just around the corner”‚ but it never materializes. Even if this latest approach passes through all the usual regulatory hoops‚ it will still be some time until it reaches pharmacy shelves. However‚ there are plenty of scientists working on the case.While it's often questioned whether guys would want to take a “male pill”‚ there is some evidence that demand is there. A 2019 survey by YouGov suggested that one in three (33 percent) of sexually active men in Britain would consider taking a male version of the pill. Most of the hesitation among men came from concerns about its side effects‚ but as this study shows‚ scientists are making solid progress in addressing that problem.  The new study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The discovery of a vampire squid specimen from the Early Jurassic could help reveal the poorly understood ancestry of this unique species. The fact it was buried holding prey adds unusual additional insight into its place in the ecosystem.Vampire squid are not true squid‚ being more closely related to octopuses than the creatures they were named after. Members of the family can be recognized in the fossil record because‚ along with their eight arms they have two filaments‚ rather than the more substantial tentacles squid have. Nevertheless‚ they remain very poorly understood.Today‚ only one species of vampire squid survives‚ but for once this isn’t a reflection of humanity’s damage to the planet. As far as we can tell‚ there has only been one species for a very long time. More than a dozen ancestral species are known from times when they apparently lived in shallower waters‚ but they’re still enough to make every discovery precious.A discovery unearthed in Luxembourg in 2022 and dating back around 180 million years is even more valuable than most. It’s a species we have not seen before‚ now named Simoniteuthis michaelyi. It’s also unusually complete‚ with the hard internal part known as the gladius and the tops of all eight arms visible. It would have been 38 centimeters (15 inches) long.The gladius (hard mouthparts) of Simoniteuthis michaelyi as seen from different angles and represented schematically.Image Credit: Fuchs et al.‚ Swiss Journal of Palaeontology‚ 2024 (CC BY 4.0)Two fishes are close to the specimen’s mouth‚ apparently being delivered by the arms. The scientists who described the fossil attribute its death to distraction sinking. This occurs when marine creatures are too busy feeding or fornicating to realize they are sinking into waters so depleted in oxygen (hypoxic) that they cannot survive or escape.One author reporting this find previously described a case of distraction sinking involving two vampire squid of different species. One of these squid was feeding on the other when‚ it is suspected‚ both sank into hypoxic waters. Such waters were more likely to preserve a specimen. Nevertheless‚ the fact that such a substantial portion of ancient vampire squid fossils seem to have died in this process suggests it was something of a menace in the Early Jurassic. Vampire squids’ modern adaptation to hypoxic waters apparently came much later. Other cephalopods were prone to distraction sinking as well. At least partial traces of all eight arms are visible in the S. michaelyi fossil‚ but there is no sign of the two filament tentacles. Nevertheless‚ the team describing it are confident they have a vampire squid‚ not an unusual-looking octopus.As one of the oldest vampire squid fossils known‚ the discovery could shed light on their evolution‚ but so far‚ if anything‚ just creates more confusion. In particular‚ we don’t know when the two filaments‚ used by modern vampire squid to scoop up small organisms and floating detritus known as “marine snow”‚ evolved. This specimen provides no answers.The slab (A–D) and counter-slab (E–G) of the vampire squid fossil in overview and close-ups of important parts‚ and under UV light‚ including the musculature of the arms (C and D) and the preyed on fish (F).Image Credit: Fuchs et al.‚ Swiss Journal of Palaeontology‚ 2024 (CC BY 4.0)Given their origins as a breakaway from true squid‚ “taxa belonging to the vampyromorph clade should definitely display an arm crown consisting of either 10 well-developed arms‚ or eight arms plus a rudimental pair‚” the authors write. However‚ like most of the other ancient vampire squid fossils‚ neither can be seen in this one.The genus name honors Jo Simon‚ a volunteer at the Luxembourg National Museum of Natural History‚ while the species is named for the Museum’s director Patrick Michaely.Vampire squid have some of the worst PR in the animal kingdom. Even the scientific name of the surviving species means “vampire squid from hell”. Having managed the remarkable feat of adapting to live in near oxygenless ocean depths‚ they get unfairly lumped with not only the vampire name but a totally spurious connection to extreme capitalism.In truth‚ were you ever to encounter a living vampire squid they would pose no threat‚ let alone drink your blood or offer you an exploitative home loan. You’d probably have been crushed to death long before by the extreme pressure of their domain‚ but given their modest size they wouldn’t eat you anyway unless something else had dismembered you.The findings are published in the Swiss Journal of Palaeontology. 

Why does a leap year have 366 days? Does the Earth move slower every four years? – Aarush‚ age 8‚ Milpitas‚ CaliforniaYou may be used to hearing that it takes the Earth 365 days to make a full lap‚ but that journey actually lasts about 365 and a quarter days. Leap years help to keep the 12-month calendar matched up with Earth’s movement around the Sun.After four years‚ those leftover hours add up to a whole day. In a leap year‚ we add this extra day to the month of February‚ making it 29 days long instead of the usual 28.The idea of an annual catch-up dates back to ancient Rome‚ where people had a calendar with 355 days instead of 365 because it was based on cycles and phases of the Moon. They noticed that their calendar was getting out of sync with the seasons‚ so they began adding an extra month‚ which they called Mercedonius‚ every two years to catch up with the missing days.In the year 45 BCE‚ Roman emperor Julius Caesar introduced a solar calendar‚ based on one developed in Egypt. Every four years‚ February received an extra day to keep the calendar in line with the Earth’s journey around the Sun. In honor of Caesar‚ this system is still known as the Julian calendar.But that wasn’t the last tweak. As time went on‚ people realized that the Earth’s journey wasn’t exactly 365.25 days – it actually took 365.24219 days‚ which is about 11 minutes less. So adding a whole day every four years was actually a little more correction than was needed.In 1582‚ Pope Gregory XIII signed an order that made a small adjustment. There would still be a leap year every four years‚ except in “century” years – years divisible by 100‚ like 1700 or 2100 – unless they were also divisible by 400. It might sound a bit like a puzzle‚ but this adjustment made the calendar even more accurate – and from that point on‚ it was known as the Gregorian calendar.What if we didn’t have leap years?If the calendar didn’t make that small correction every four years‚ it would gradually fall out of alignment with the seasons. Over centuries‚ this could lead to the solstices and equinoxes occurring at different times than expected. Winter weather might develop in what the calendar showed as summer‚ and farmers could become confused about when to plant their seeds.  Without leap years‚ our calendar would gradually become disconnected from the seasons.Other calendars around the world have their own ways of keeping time. The Jewish calendar‚ which is regulated by both the Moon and the Sun‚ is like a big puzzle with a 19-year cycle. Every now and then‚ it adds a leap month to make sure that special celebrations happen at just the right time.The Islamic calendar is even more unique. It follows the phases of the Moon and doesn’t add extra days. Since a lunar year is only about 355 days long‚ key dates on the Islamic calendar move 10 to 11 days earlier each year on the solar calendar.For example‚ Ramadan‚ the Islamic month of fasting‚ falls in the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. In 2024‚ it will run from March 11 to April 9; in 2025‚ it will occur from March 1-29; and in 2026‚ it will be celebrated from Feb. 18 to March 19.Learning from the planetsAstronomy originated as a way to make sense of our daily lives‚ linking the events around us to celestial phenomena. The concept of leap years exemplifies how‚ from early ages‚ humans found order in conditions that seemed chaotic.Simple‚ unsophisticated but effective tools‚ born from creative ideas of ancient astronomers and visionaries‚ provided the first glimpses into understanding the nature that envelops us. Some ancient methods‚ such as astrometry and lists of astronomical objects‚ persist even today‚ revealing the timeless essence of our quest to understand nature.Ancient Egyptians were dedicated astronomers. This section from the ceiling of the tomb of Senenmut‚ a high court official in Egypt‚ was drawn sometime circa 1479–1458 B.C.E. It shows constellations‚ protective gods and 24 segmented wheels for the hours of the day and the months of the year.Image Credit: NebMaatRa via Wikimedia Commons‚ GNU General Public LicensePeople who do research in physics and astronomy‚ the field that I study‚ are inherently curious about the workings of the universe and our origins. This work is exciting‚ and also extremely humbling; it constantly shows that in the grand scheme‚ our lives occupy a mere second in the vast expanse of space and time – even in leap years when we add that extra day.Hello‚ curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name‚ age and the city where you live.And since curiosity has no age limit – adults‚ let us know what you’re wondering‚ too. We won’t be able to answer every question‚ but we will do our best. Bhagya Subrayan‚ PhD Student in Physics and Astronomy‚ Purdue UniversityThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria hosted a Sunday special documentary entitled Why Iran Hates America where he ultimately homed in on three Republican presidents: Ronald Reagan‚ George W. Bush‚ and Donald Trump. There is a fine line between explaining Iran’s position and uncritically regurgitating it and Zakaria failed to appreciate the difference as he omitted key information and contradicted himself during relevant portions of the program. Intermixing his own narration with achieved news reports of the Iran-Iraq War‚ Zakaria explained that “Iran was utterly isolated‚” while author Robin Wright added that‚ “it was really Iran standing alone against the rest of the world. And it has defined its security strategy ever since.”     Talking over footage of Reagan on the White House lawn‚ Zakaria mangled history‚ “Meanwhile‚ Washington faced a hard quandary. It had no love for Saddam. But it hated Iran more. So the CIA sent an agent to Baghdad with valuable intelligence‚ beginning a years-long U.S. relationship with Saddam Hussein.” This gives the impression that‚ under Reagan‚ the United States decided to kick Iran while it was down‚ but that is not accurate. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in September 1980‚ but what Zakaria was discussing did not come about until 1982 when Iran was able to reverse the invasion and clear Iraqi forces out of the country and carry the war into Iraq because it would not end the war unless Saddam was removed. From that point on‚ Washington felt it was necessary to stop Iran and its Shia revolution from expanding beyond Iran. Later‚ after playing a clip of Bush’s Axis of Evil speech‚ Zakaria added‚ “And we all know what happened next.” Following a brief digression into the Iraq War‚ author Narges Bajoghli claimed that “Iran sees itself as a part of the Axis of Evil. So it begins to feel that it has to create a defensive policy against a potential attack.” Zakaria followed up‚ “So Iran shifted to its axis of resistance. A forward defense policy that has been its protector for more than 40 years. Iran became a major presence in Iraq‚ arming Shiite militias that viciously attacked American soldiers. When almost all U.S. troops withdrew in 2011‚ those militias became an integral part of Iraq's army.” Which is it? Is it Bush’s rhetoric and decision to attack Iraq or is it 40 years of policy that predates Bush?     Next‚ it was Trump’s turn to be criticized‚ “When the U.S. assassinated Soleimani in 2020‚ the result might have backfired‚ galvanizing Iran and its allies.” Bajoghli added‚ “It was actually in many ways a goldmine because instead of him being killed by someone in ISIS he's being assassinated by the Great Satan.” You can never know for sure how many of the anti-American protestors are genuine and how many were bribed or forced to be there‚ but either way‚ it completely ignores the mass uprisings the regime has faced in the years since. Wrapping it all up at the end‚ Zakaria again blamed Bush‚ claiming that after 9/11 Iran just wanted to get along with the U.S.‚ “Iran took some important steps to cooperate with Washington in Afghanistan in helping to set up a new government. But once George W. Bush branded them part of the Axis of Evil‚ those overtures collapsed.” He also got in one last whack at Trump‚ “[The Iran nuclear deal] was premised not on trust‚ but on mistrust. Each side carefully protected its interests in that document. But it did create the possibility of a working relationship. And Iran did adhere to the deal‚ moving further away from a nuclear weapons program than it had been for decades. But Donald Trump blew up that deal and that opportunity. And in Iran forces opposed to the deal and any kind of rapprochement with Washington gained power‚ sidelined Rouhani‚ and now rule with an even more brutal fist.” The Biden Administration has recently warned Iran not to export ballistic missiles to Russia for its war on Ukraine because Obama’s deal removed the embargo that prohibited Iran from exporting such weapons. So much for “carefully protected” interests. Beyond the three GOP presidents‚ Zakaria’s documentary also included Georgetown’s Ali Vaez‚ who has solicited feedback from former Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on articles he has written defending the nuclear deal. Here is a transcript for the February 25 show: CNN Why Iran Hates America: A Fareed Zakaria Special 2/25/2024 8:34 PM ET FAREED ZAKARIA: Iran was utterly isolated. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Because of fears it will export its fanaticism. ZAKARIA: Backed only by Syria and Libya among Arab nations. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Iraq is getting everything it needs. ZAKARIA: Iraq had most Arab states' support as well as that of the Soviet Union. UNIDENTIFIED NARRATOR: Saddam Hussein. ROBIN WRIGHT: It was really Iran standing alone against the rest of the world. And it has defined its security strategy ever since. ZAKARIA: Meanwhile‚ Washington faced a hard quandary. It had no love for Saddam. But it hated Iran more. So the CIA sent an agent to Baghdad with valuable intelligence‚ beginning a years-long U.S. relationship with Saddam Hussein. JOHN LIMBERT: Our support of Saddam Hussein during The Iran-Iraq war‚ I think was disgraceful. … ZAKARIA: Nearly five months after 9/11‚ President George W. Bush went on the offensive in his 2002 State of the Union Address. GEORGE W. BUSH: North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction… Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror… Iraq continues to plan its hostility toward America and to support terror… States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an Axis of Evil arming to threaten the peace of the world. ZAKARIA: A presidential threat branded three countries as the Axis of Evil. And we all know what happened next. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Air raid sirens blared before dawn in Baghdad. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The first American Marines had moved in. ZAKARIA: March 2003‚ U.S. forces invade Iraq vowing to destroy its weapons of mass destruction‚ and put an end to Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Goodbye‚ Saddam. ZAKARIA: But it was all a historic mistake. DAVID KAY: It turns out‚ so we were all wrong. ZAKARIA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the invasion set off a firestorm of violence and vitriol‚ stoking anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East. NARGES BAJOGHLI: Iran sees itself as a part of the Axis of Evil. So it begins to feel that it has to create a defensive policy against a potential attack. ZAKARIA: So Iran shifted to its axis of resistance. A forward defense policy that has been its protector for more than 40 years. Iran became a major presence in Iraq‚ arming Shiite militias that viciously attacked American soldiers. When almost all U.S. troops withdrew in 2011‚ those militias became an integral part of Iraq's army. … ZAKARIA (voice-over): In Lebanon groups like Hezbollah‚ the crown jewel of Iran's forward defense policy. In Gaza‚ Hamas and Islamic Jihad largely responsible for the October 7th attack on Israel. In Yemen‚ the Houthis who have conducted missile strikes to disrupt shipping lanes and global trade. In Syria‚ a paramilitary group called Shabiha‚ organized by President Bashar al-Assad. And in Iraq and Syria‚ Shia militias. They all act as a conduit and an enforcer to convey Iran's message to the world. VALI NASR: Iran would recruit‚ train‚ organize these militia groups who had a strategic and a tactical relationship with Iran. They will receive funding for military weaponry and they would also be integrated into a command-and-control structure of the Quds Force. ZAKARIA: Quds Force is the most elite part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard responsible for growing the Axis of Resistance. That task fell on the broad shoulders of notorious Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani‚ who took great offense at Bush's Axis of Evil label. MALCOM BYRNE: Here was a person who is just hated by the West and by American officials because he has been the leader of most efforts that have involved threats to the United States. VICTOR BLACKWELL: A rocket attack on the Baghdad airport kills Iran's most revered military leader. ZAKARIA: When the U.S. assassinated Soleimani in 2020‚ the result might have backfired‚ galvanizing Iran and its allies. BAJOGHLI: It was actually in many ways a goldmine because instead of him being killed by someone in ISIS he's being assassinated by the Great Satan. … ZAKARIA: After 9/11‚ Iran took some important steps to cooperate with Washington in Afghanistan in helping to set up a new government. But once George W. Bush branded them part of the Axis of Evil‚ those overtures collapsed. The most significant effort was made by Barack Obama and Iran's then president Hassan Rouhani‚ who both spoke of creating a new relationship. It was not friendship as Iran's Foreign Minister Javid Zarif pointed out to me the Iran nuclear deal was premised not on trust‚ but on mistrust. Each side carefully protected its interests in that document. But it did create the possibility of a working relationship. And Iran did adhere to the deal‚ moving further away from a nuclear weapons program than it had been for decades. But Donald Trump blew up that deal and that opportunity. And in Iran forces opposed to the deal and any kind of rapprochement with Washington gained power‚ sidelined Rouhani‚ and now rule with an even more brutal fist.

President Biden again refused to do a serious interview with a serious news outlet for the Super Bowl‚ but his White House handlers did set him up with a nice tongue bath from NBC comedian Seth Meyers. Reacting to the interview on Tuesday‚ the Cackling Coven of ABC’s The View gushed about how Biden had “the rizz” (slang for having a lot of charisma). They even went so far as to suggest that he was almost – almost as good as former President Obama at doing casual interviews with friendly media. Ignoring the strong likelihood that the whole thing was a verbal Potemkin village (from foreknowledge of the questions to having his infamous aviator sunglasses on hand as a prop)‚ co-host Joy Behar was enamored.  “Look at the way the audience reacted to it‚” she hyped how Meyers’ liberal audience applauded the liberal president. Adding: “And also‚ you notice how relaxed Biden is here? Because when he's relaxed he doesn't stutter‚ he doesn't get nervous and the whole thing of his age goes out the window.” It was also Behar who exclaimed that Biden had “the rizz.” While co-host Sara Haines was proclaiming that she “love[d] seeing [Biden] in the late night arena” and how it reminded her of Obama‚ Behar had nearly the entire table parroting her take: HAINES: Uniquely. Like‚ so we can all agree at the table – because Alyssa's politics differ‚ the charisma‚ the ability to -- BEHAR: The rizz! The rizz! HOSITN: The rizz! FARAH GRIFFIN: The rizz! HAINES: The rizz! He had the rizz!     Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin continued her trend of being useless at representing the Republican position on the show. She rhetorically saluted the White House communications team for finally cooking up a message to counter the public’s understanding that Biden was mentally unfit for office. “So‚ I think that the White House finally came up with a perfect line to combat the age idea. I think saying ‘it's about how old your ideas’ and then tying it to the abortion issue and rolling back LGBTQ rights‚” she touted. “That's what they need to say because you can be as old as you want to be.” Going further‚ she suggested the canned line “resonates with people” and the appearance “was one of his best performances. I would invite him to come on The View. I think he needs to get out there more and talk to people. They have to see him to know that he's up to the job.” “I thought he was so brilliant‚” Haines agreed. “And the old ideas thing. When I saw it‚ I was like‚ ‘That is perfect!’ That's exactly a contrast and a point that really resonates.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) also fawned that Biden “was in his best form” and was finally putting up a “good offense” to “bombastic Trump.” “Listen‚ Joe’s been – Joe‚ you know‚ is famous for being laid back. He’s laid back‚” moderator Whoopi Goldberg added. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 27‚ 2024 11:16:37 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So‚ do you think this appearance will resonate with people? JOY BEHAR: Yes. Look at the way the audience reacted to it. GOLDBERG: All right. All right. BEHAR: You know‚ Ronald Reagan famously used his sense of humor. He was only 73 in 1984 when he said‚ “Well‚ I'm not going to hold your age against you.” Remember that? Because the guy he was running against‚ Walter Mondale was like 50-something and that was one of those things that put him over the top. And also‚ you notice how relaxed Biden is here? Because when he's relaxed he doesn't stutter‚ he doesn't get nervous and the whole thing of his age goes out the window. And also contrast his sense of humor to Trump who thinks it's funny -- let's hang our vice president. He thinks that's funny. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So‚ I think that the White House finally came up with a perfect line to combat the age idea. I think saying “it's about how old your ideas” and then tying it to the abortion issue and rolling back LGBTQ rights. That's what they need to say because you can be as old as you want to be. I actually think -- I'm not a Democrat but for Democrats I could see somebody who’s‚ you know‚ more older in their years but being somebody who -- GOLDBERG: You can say mature‚ you can say older. [Crosstalk] FARAH GRIFFIN: But defending these viewpoints that we feel like – they feel like the other side is going backward on. I think that that resonates with people. I thought it was one of his best performances. I would invite him to come on The View. I think he needs to get out there more and talk to people. They have to see him to know that he's up to the job. SARA HAINES: I thought he was so brilliant; and the old ideas thing. When I saw it‚ I was like‚ “that is perfect!” That's exactly a contrast and a point that really resonates. I love seeing him in the late night arena. Obama was so good at this. President Obama -- BEHAR: Well‚ he was a pro at everything! HAINES: Yeah‚ but I just think— [Applause] HOSTIN: Yes‚ he was. HAINES: Uniquely. Like‚ so we can all agree at the table – because Alyssa's politics differ‚ the charisma‚ the ability to -- BEHAR: The rizz! The rizz! HOSITN: The rizz! FARAH GRIFFIN: The rizz! HAINES: The rizz! He had the rizz! And late night brings out different qualities. When you described the relaxed; he's on a couch‚ he’s sitting having a conversation. Normally‚ he's sitting at a podium and it’s all this – [franticly shaking] GOLDBERG: And it's only one person. HAINES: Yeah! And so‚ I think whenever you’re putting people – they should be everywhere. Because a late night show is different from a daytime show which is different than CNN or Meet the Press. GOLDBERG: Well‚ he doesn’t have – Listen‚ Joe’s been – Joe‚ you know‚ is famous for being laid back. He’s laid back. HOSTIN: Yeah. Uncle Joe. (…) 11:21:18 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: I think he did a great job. I think the best defense is a good offense; and he's been back on his heels so much and we've seen this bombastic Trump‚ you know‚ attack‚ on the attack‚ on the attack. So‚ I think he was in his best form. Of what we saw last night. (…)

Swimsuit model Kristen Louelle Gaffney said that she angered feminists by saying women should take care of themselves physically‚ adding that men are receiving undeserved hate despite building the country.Gaffney‚ a 2021 Sports Illustrated swimsuit model‚ says she came under fire for generally apolitical commentary she gave that was related to women exercising."Something I did not think was a hot topic‚ and it's not political‚ is I said women should take care of themselves physically. I said women should go to the gym. I said women should get their nails done‚ they should put some effort into their appearance‚ and it went viral and the comments were crazy‚" Gaffney told OutKick's Charly Arnolt.The model also took shots at the political left‚ saying leftists have a lot of critiques of men yet are unable to concretely define a particular gender."The left side has really been pushing down men lately‚ yet they can't define what a woman is‚ so that's quite ironic‚" Gaffney continued. "There's a lot of irony in their agendas‚" she added.The San Diego native and wife of former NFL running back Tyler Gaffney previously made headlines when she sported a MAGA purse at the Super Bowl LVIII festivities and praised President Trump."Trump embraces the American dream‚ he protects our children‚ and he puts our country first‚" she said according to Fox News. The 32-year-old added that those who have challenged the concept of putting America and its people first should be questioned‚ rather than Trump.Noting that she wanted to "make a statement" with her accessory‚ Gaffney said she received a lot of support‚ including a lot of high fives from men at the Super Bowl events.Host Arnolt had her own choice words over the feminism debate‚ plainly stating that "toxic masculinity is hot.""The absence of masculinity is the problem; it's not that masculinity exists‚" she explained. Arnolt said that she believed it is also a woman's responsibility to continue to take of herself during a relationship."I think that one of the roles of being a woman is is looking nice‚ taking care of yourself‚ and I think that if you do neglect that and a guy starts losing interest‚ then that's ultimately — I won't say all but some of — your own fault if you're not going to try to look nice for your man and continue to impress."Ultimately‚ the podcaster said that both men and women need to make an effort for one another in a relationship; otherwise they can likely expect their connection to start "falling apart."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!